Matt, if the bug is IN a module, and the module is reused, the fix IS
common. Say I have a function that doesn't check the limits of a
parameter. If the fix is to do a limit check to keep a pointer
calculation from goofing up, then the fix is contained within the module
(or function) and would fix both platforms. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mariusrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:01 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe
> 
> 
> even if some code was the same it doesn't mean the bug fix 
> would be the same . Sometimes a quick fix is modifying other 
> portions of the software than the faulty one, maybe even not 
> knowing where the fault is , just patch something until it 
> works. For example, something hangs, we don't know why, put a 
> timeout on it , problem solved although the cause still exists.
> 
> Matt Tudor, MSEE
> http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about this a bit more today. This evening 
> Terry Creer 
> > discovered a 'new' bug. Subsequently, a few of us confirmed 
> it in DXP. 
> > Here's an interesting perspective: It's probably clear that DXP has 
> > some if not a lot of code reuse from 99SE. If we find a bug in DXP, 
> > you know it will have very high priority. If it turns out 
> that a bug 
> > is fixed in a module that was reused, that would be a FREE 
> fix for the 
> > 99SE code base. A service pack might move forward for 99SE without 
> > them even trying!
> >
> > Neat huh?
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:20 AM
> > > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > > Cc: JaMi Smith
> > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > ~ ~ ~
> > >
> > > > Not to jump all over you, but how do you suppose Altium is
> > > supposed to
> > > > fix bugs if we don't report them?
> > >
> > >
> > > Excellent point Tony,
> > >
> > > But I think that there are actually some other priorities too!
> > >
> > > I think that the first thing we have to do is pull together as a 
> > > group, and "poll" the major players out there on just 
> what we want 
> > > to do, and how we can effectively go about doing it.
> > >
> > > I think that it really is clear that we want and need a 
> Protel 99 SE 
> > > SP7.
> > >
> > > I also think that we all must realize that Altiums priorities are 
> > > with DXP now, and we are not going to get very far if we 
> attempt to 
> > > draw resources away from DXP, which I do not believe that 
> we have to 
> > > do.
> > >
> > > I think that we have crossed the major hurdle that was in 
> place in 
> > > that most people out there now appear that they are 
> really ready to 
> > > admit that Protel 99 SE is if fact a software package 
> that has some 
> > > real serious bugs out there which are causing some real stability 
> > > issues and problems, and is in fact flaky, and that 
> Protel / Altium 
> > > has never appeared willing to admit to any of this, nor 
> have some of 
> > > it's staunchest supporters.
> > >
> > > But the facts appear to speak for themselves.
> > >
> > > Protel / Altium will just have to face the facts.
> > >
> > > I think that if Protel /Altium are faced with a unified 
> front from 
> > > their customers and users, I think that we actually can 
> get a lot of 
> > > things done.
> > >
> > > I think that another major issue and hurdle is also about to fall 
> > > into place, or actually out of the way, and that is the issue of 
> > > DXP. Many are ready to abandon Protel 99 SE in order to 
> jump on the 
> > > DXP band wagon, thinking that all of their software problems and 
> > > shortcommings will go away once we get past DXP SP1 and 
> learn how to 
> > > operate DXP.
> > >
> > > What many of those people do not understand is that even 
> if all of 
> > > the code was rewritten, by an entirely new team of 
> programmers, the 
> > > environment and mentality that allowed this to happen 
> with Protel 99 
> > > SE is still very much entrenched at Protel / Altium, and 
> that means 
> > > that the same thing will happen with DXP, unless the 
> customers and 
> > > users confront Protel / Altium and let them know that this type of
> > > programming and lack of support cannot be allowed to continue.
> > >
> > > I don't think that it is going to take much to convince 
> most people 
> > > out there that unless we as a group demand more from Protel / 
> > > Altium, we are simply not going to get it.
> > >
> > > Many of those people will soon find that the current 
> attentiveness 
> > > of Protel / Altium management in the DXP forum and their 
> willingness 
> > > in trying to get things worked out with DXP, is only  a temporary 
> > > situation brought about by the need to start collecting annual 
> > > renewals for ATS in just a little over 2 weeks now, in an 
> attempt to 
> > > head off a PR and Financial Disaster, not to mention 
> potential legal 
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > As soon as they can convince enough people that DXP is really 
> > > working, so that they can start collecting revenue from 
> ATS as well 
> > > as new DXP sales, we will see that support in the forum 
> evaporate, 
> > > and we will be in exactly in the same position that we 
> have been in 
> > > with Protel 99 SE for the past however many  years.
> > >
> > > And it is not even as simple as that, not only since any new code 
> > > base not only has its own new problems, but not every 
> thing in DXP 
> > > is in fact new, which means that there may be some old problems 
> > > sneaking into the mix.
> > >
> > > So as I was saying, I think that we need to organize 
> ourselves and 
> > > come to a consensus as to our direction, and if we cannot get 
> > > everyone's support, we can at least request that everyone 
> ackwiess 
> > > [sic?] to not interfere with an otherwise unified attempt to get 
> > > things done.
> > >
> > > I then think that we need to sort out just exactly what 
> it is that 
> > > we think we want to accomplish, and go from there.
> > >
> > > Then I would say then comes the compilation of the real bug list.
> > >
> > > One of the things that I have tried to make very clear, 
> but I am not 
> > > too sure that I have been able to do, is to let everyone 
> know that I 
> > > do not expect Protel / Altium to have to continue to 
> support Protel 
> > > 99 SE.
> > >
> > > I am not asking for that.
> > >
> > > What I am asking for is to have Protel / Altium make an effort co 
> > > meet its customers and users in the middle ground somewhere, and 
> > > make one last effort to fix some of the remaining problems with 
> > > Protel 99 SE so that it can continue to be used, without 
> some of its 
> > > current problems, by all of its current customers and users, at 
> > > least up and to the point that DXP is in fact a real and viable 
> > > product.
> > >
> > > Then if Protel / Altium wants to abandon Protel 99 SE, since they 
> > > obviously appear to feel that they cannot develop it any further, 
> > > then so be it.
> > >
> > > But actually, I really I believe that with one more Service Pack, 
> > > Protel 99 SE could be transformed into a very stable, useable, 
> > > middle of the road product that they could continue to 
> sell just as 
> > > is, for many years to come, just as it is, with out any new 
> > > development.
> > >
> > > More importantly, those customers and users who have bought into 
> > > Protel 99 SE relatively recently, but are just not ready for 
> > > whatever reason to step up to DXP, will be able to 
> continue using a 
> > > much more stable version of the Protel 99 SE product they 
> paid good 
> > > money for, rather than being totally abandoned by Protel / Altium 
> > > with Protel 99 SE left in it's current unstable condition.
> > >
> > > At a very minimum, a concerted effort at this time by all 
> customers 
> > > and users to really attempt to get to the bottom of some of these 
> > > bugs, now that we have gotten past our first hurdle 
> above, will at 
> > > the very least leave those people who continue to use 
> Protel 99 SE 
> > > with a fairly well researched bug list and understanding 
> of pitfalls 
> > > and things not to do if you do not want it to crash.
> > >
> > > First and foremost, most of us have jobs to do, and projects that 
> > > must get finished, so I think that one of the important 
> things that 
> > > we must do is to respect each other's time constraints.
> > >
> > > This means nothing will happen overnight.
> > >
> > > But it also means that if we all do a little, then we 
> really can get 
> > > things accomplished.
> > >
> > > That said, I nominate you all for the SP7 committee, and 
> I will now 
> > > go to bed.
> > >
> > > JaMi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **************************************************************
> > > **********
> > > * Tracking #: F11BB67F7999E64DA64E25752BE42D35403D8DC6
> > > *
> > > **************************************************************
> > > **********
> > >
> 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to